Omaha Mall Shooting

Pages

AuthorTopic: Omaha Mall Shooting
Shaper
Member # 7472
Profile Homepage #25
quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

I think there is a lot of sense in this, and I think it applies even more strongly to spree and serial killers. They should not be named, and nothing about them should be reported. 'A sicko shot some people' would be enough.

Every depressed guy with an ammo crate should know that that would be all the epitaph he would get by going on rampage. Taking away the incentive of posthumous notoriety outweighs any legitimate right the public has to satisfy idle morbid curiosity.

And there is nothing to be gained, anyway, by learning more about a mass murderer, whatever their motivations. Investigating why they did it makes as much sense as interviewing a tumor. Nothing that could possibly turn up from investigation could be adequate explanation, let alone justification. It would still amount, in the end, to 'a sicko shot some people'. We should just leave it at that.

No, is shouldn't be left at that. No matter how depraved a person is, he is (or was) still human. And it should be reported that these things aren't random acts of fate; it's a disgrace to both the killer and his victims. An investigation at least provides a reason, which in turn provides at least a tiny bit of solace to the families who lost one of their own. This guy wasn't some terrorist working for well-known twisted ends that are supplied by blowing innocent people up; he was a fellow citizen who tragically lost his life.

--------------------
Hz'ii'zt a'iiencf coxnen a'bn'z'p pahuen yzpa'zuhb be'tt'phukh'kn az'ii'ova mxn't bhcizvi'fl?

Nioca's Citadel - A resource for BoA graphics and scripts, as well as my scenarios.
In Last Hope's Light RP - The end is near...
Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 4784
Profile Homepage #26
quote:
Originally written by Elastikon:

Homosexual acts may not be illegal, but homosexuals and other queer people aren't given all the rights and privileges of straights. So clearly the government does have an opinion on sexuality, and it's one that happens to coincide with a more conservative Protestant opinion.
The privileges aren't given for no reason, though. The government wants men and women to get married and (here's the key) procreate so that next year's military will have a good population of strapping young lads to fight in their wars and next year's lads will have ladies to birth their next generation. Marriage of one man and one woman increases the chances of this happening and provides for a... hopefully stable foundation for the upbringing of said children. Thus the reason it is encouraged and rewarded with tax relief.

Granted this does not cover all privilege discrepencies, especially on the individual business level, but then it's a question of how big you want your government to be in regulating such things.

--------------------
Forever Always on Past the End

TrueSite for Blades - Blades Walkthroughs
Pixle Profusion - BoE Graphics Archive
Posts: 563 | Registered: Tuesday, July 27 2004 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #27
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

By the way, a sentiment of anti-homosexuality is far from being the sole property of conservative Protestants. I think it's safe to say it's ubiquitous the world over.
So is evil.

quote:
Originally written by Jewelz:

The privileges aren't given for no reason, though. The government wants men and women to get married and (here's the key) procreate so that next year's military will have a good population of strapping young lads to fight in their wars and next year's lads will have ladies to birth their next generation.
Maybe this would make sense if sexual orientation were a choice, but it's not. The strapping young gay lads aren't interested in settling down with young ladies for a fecund union. Petty bribery won't change this. And plenty of those gay lads and ladies would very much like children and provide stable homes. It's just a little harder for them since the government shakes wags a stern, moralistic finger at them.

quote:
Granted this does not cover all privilege discrepencies, especially on the individual business level, but then it's a question of how big you want your government to be in regulating such things.
This echoes post-Civil War sentiments in the South. When there is discrimination the government needs to be big enough and intrusive enough to stop it. This was (and, sadly, is) true of racial discrimination, this was and is true of gender discrimination, and it is definitely true of homophobic discrimination.

—Alorael, who very much like's ET's comment. It captures the issues of the American Civil War beyond slavery quite neatly.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #28
Procreation wasn't the motivation for the tax incentives. It had a lot more to do with recognizing the particular cultural norms of the time. Traditionally, there was only one income earner per family. Because that income earner had more people to support than an unmarried individual, the government decided to create the "married" and "head of household" tax rates to ease the burden, with respectively adjusted tax rates, standard deductions, and personal exemptions. Times however, have changed - it seems there's hardly a family anymore that doesn't have two income earners, and therefore, two taxpayers. As such, the marriage categorization became a "penalty," since the standard deductions of two individuals together filing seperately were greater than the single marital deduction they would receive filing jointly. The tax code has since been adjusted to at least restore balance, but times and understandings have changed.

If the government eliminated hetero marital privileges, more people wouldn't all of the sudden turn gay. That's like saying it would rain more often if they stopped making umbrellas.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #29
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

I think they are. The only thing I can think of is military restrictions on sharing your sexuality, but not on practicing it. But in general, discrimination based on sexuality is illegal here.
The main thing I was thinking of was privileges related to partnership. Not the marriage issue, which is a stupid one IMHO given how easily other countries have solved that with the invention of domestic partnerships; but everything peripheral to that. Legal recognition with regard to, for example, hospital visitation and medical decision-making.

But there are other inequalities perpetuated by the government. The Department of Defense still classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder, 34 years after it was removed from the DSM. That's a bit different from just saying "don't talk about it." (Obviously, it doesn't list heterosexuality as one.)

20 states have laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. The other 30 don't. So in 3/5 of the country, such discrimination is legal.

quote:
By the way, a sentiment of anti-homosexuality is far from being the sole property of conservative Protestants. I think it's safe to say it's ubiquitous the world over.
It isn't ubiquitous. It's certainly common to many different peoples and groups, in some form at any rate, but it's far from ubiquitous.

I mentioned conservative Protestantism because that is the major moral matrix opposing homosexuality in this country.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #30
quote:
Originally written by Jewelz:

The privileges aren't given for no reason, though. The government wants men and women to get married and (here's the key) procreate so that next year's military will have a good population of strapping young lads to fight in their wars and next year's lads will have ladies to birth their next generation. Marriage of one man and one woman increases the chances of this happening and provides for a... hopefully stable foundation for the upbringing of said children. Thus the reason it is encouraged and rewarded with tax relief.
Alorael's point about choice to the side, the goal you mention here -- of increased procreation -- is a spurious one. Overpopulation is going to be an issue for us before underpopulation is. Do you have any idea how overcrowded the foster care system is? Adopt, adopt, adopt! (Adopt the One Child Policy!) While the military obviously needs a lot of strapping young lads and lasses, increased use of technology has been replacing some of the demand for warm bodies for decades.

And if there really were a need for more strapping young folk in arms, perhaps the military would be more receptive to the ladies, and would also stop refusing those men and women who are openly gay.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #31
Nioca - You are wrong. Abandon that line of thought now, before your mind is thoroughly riddled with holes.

Stillness - You are blind to that which you do not want to see. Publicly decided measures on the equality of homosexuals (when deciding on their right to suffer a publicly condoned marriage) were almost all defeated in the last round of elections. Since the government bases a lot of rights (survivorship,etc) on the relationship of marriage, it seems quite clear that while God condones homosexuality, man and government do not.

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted"
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Shaper
Member # 7472
Profile Homepage #32
quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

Nioca - You are wrong. Abandon that line of thought now, before your mind is thoroughly riddled with holes.
Oh? And how is it wrong? How is showing compassion, sympathy, and understanding wrong?

--------------------
Hz'ii'zt a'iiencf coxnen a'bn'z'p pahuen yzpa'zuhb be'tt'phukh'kn az'ii'ova mxn't bhcizvi'fl?

Nioca's Citadel - A resource for BoA graphics and scripts, as well as my scenarios.
In Last Hope's Light RP - The end is near...
Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00
Shaper
Member # 32
Profile #33
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

...I think the government is pretty secular. What are you saying?
:eek:

Did you miss the big speech that Mitt Romney had to give to prove to the Christians that Mormons aren't evil; or at least that one Mormon in particular isn't...

[ Friday, December 07, 2007 10:42: Message edited by: Lt. Sullust ]

--------------------
Lt. Sullust
Quaere verum
Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
Profile Homepage #34
quote:
Originally written by Nioca:

No, is shouldn't be left at that. No matter how depraved a person is, he is (or was) still human. And it should be reported that these things aren't random acts of fate; it's a disgrace to both the killer and his victims. An investigation at least provides a reason, which in turn provides at least a tiny bit of solace to the families who lost one of their own. This guy wasn't some terrorist working for well-known twisted ends that are supplied by blowing innocent people up; he was a fellow citizen who tragically lost his life.
After the stunning insight that the first part of your post constitutes, the nationalist conclusion is disappointing. Seriously, would it kill you to scratch the terrorist and write "human" instead of "citizen"?

It is high time that we begin to understand our species as a single civilization, or we will have a hard time surviving the coming century.

[ Friday, December 07, 2007 11:33: Message edited by: Arancaytar ]

--------------------
The Noble and Ancient Order of Polaris - We're Not Yet Dead.
EncyclopediaBlades ForgeArchivesStatsRSS (This Topic / Forum) • BlogNaNoWriMo
Did-chat thentagoespyet jumund fori is jus, hat onlime gly nertan ne gethen Firyoubbit 'obio.'
Decorum deserves a whole line of my signature, and an entry in your bookmarks.
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #35
quote:
Originally written by For Love of Skribbane:

the government shakes wags a stern, moralistic finger at them.
I would agree if homosexuality was still illegal, but it is not. Some Americans may feel it’s wrong, but the government doesn’t enforce that feeling.

quote:
Originally written by Elastikon:

Legal recognition with regard to, for example, hospital visitation and medical decision-making.
You can give rights to anyone with things like a durable power of attorney. I don’t see how this is discriminatory.

quote:
The Department of Defense still classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder
Is that enforced though? It might be illegal for me to kiss my wife on a Sunday after eating garlic, but the police aren’t exactly knocking down my door.

quote:
in 3/5 of the country, such discrimination is legal.
So you mean to tell me that if I tell a homosexual I won’t rent to them or they can’t come into my store because they’re gay in those 30 states it’s legal? I have a hard time seeing that. I’m not big on law, so I freely admit I could be wrong.

quote:
It isn't ubiquitous. It's certainly common to many different peoples and groups
The latter portion of your comment is really what I was getting at.

quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

Publicly decided measures on the equality of homosexuals (when deciding on their right to suffer a publicly condoned marriage) were almost all defeated in the last round of elections. Since the government bases a lot of rights (survivorship,etc) on the relationship of marriage
What does marriage have to do with equality? Inequality is when someone is treated differently. A homosexual man or woman has the same legal rights, restrictions, and protections that heterosexual ones do (unless Slarty is correct and they can be denied rights with inpunity). What you’re talking about are additional rights for everyone – namely same sex marriage. That wouldn’t effect equality anymore than provisions for marrying trees would.

And you can will your stuff to whomever you please.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Shaper
Member # 7472
Profile Homepage #36
quote:
Originally written by Arancaytar:

quote:
Originally written by Nioca:

No, is shouldn't be left at that. No matter how depraved a person is, he is (or was) still human. And it should be reported that these things aren't random acts of fate; it's a disgrace to both the killer and his victims. An investigation at least provides a reason, which in turn provides at least a tiny bit of solace to the families who lost one of their own. This guy wasn't some terrorist working for well-known twisted ends that are supplied by blowing innocent people up; he was a fellow citizen who tragically lost his life.
After the stunning insight that the first part of your post constitutes, the nationalist conclusion is disappointing. Seriously, would it kill you to scratch the terrorist and write "human" instead of "citizen"?

I apologize for the nationalist conclusion and implications; I mis-spoke myself, and I have a tendency when debating or speculating to narrow my sights on a single point (in this case, SoT's point about terrorists).

[ Friday, December 07, 2007 12:01: Message edited by: Nioca ]

--------------------
Hz'ii'zt a'iiencf coxnen a'bn'z'p pahuen yzpa'zuhb be'tt'phukh'kn az'ii'ova mxn't bhcizvi'fl?

Nioca's Citadel - A resource for BoA graphics and scripts, as well as my scenarios.
In Last Hope's Light RP - The end is near...
Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00
Shaper
Member # 7472
Profile Homepage #37
EDIT: Crap. I hit the quote button instead of the Edit, and didn't realize it.

[ Friday, December 07, 2007 12:00: Message edited by: Nioca ]

--------------------
Hz'ii'zt a'iiencf coxnen a'bn'z'p pahuen yzpa'zuhb be'tt'phukh'kn az'ii'ova mxn't bhcizvi'fl?

Nioca's Citadel - A resource for BoA graphics and scripts, as well as my scenarios.
In Last Hope's Light RP - The end is near...
Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
Profile #38
Victims' families may well be able to learn more about the perpetrator, for whatever solace it gives them — I can't see myself how it would give any, but special provision could be made for them if they wished. The rest of the world has no stake in that.

Respect for the humanity of random mass murderers is in some sense right. I do not presume to judge their souls. Perhaps if I had lived their lives I would have done no better. I frequently have moral lapses that seem minor or excusable to me at the time, but that's how great evil happens. And even if my judgement of 'minor' is sound, this probably doesn't represent virtue, as much as the fact that my life is relatively easy.

But most people live and die without national media attention. In particular the victims of violent crime are generally ignored. There is no human right to fame. Denying publicity to mass murderers would not be taking from them anything to which they are legitimately entitled.

--------------------
Listen carefully because some of your options may have changed.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #39
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

...same sex marriage. That wouldn’t effect equality anymore than provisions for marrying trees would.
I realize this quote is out of context, but you have to admit it's a little dehumanizing.

The point is that heterosexual relationships are treated differently from homosexual relationships even if they are otherwise similar. When it comes to religion or your personal life, it would be wrong to deny people the right to treat them differently. Conversely, when it comes to civil rights and legal status, it is wrong for the government to to treat them differently.

This is the same theory that says white power groups, for example, have a right to freedom of expression; but it is not right for the government to treat black couples differently from white couples in any way.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Shaper
Member # 7472
Profile Homepage #40
quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

But most people live and die without national media attention. In particular the victims of violent crime are generally ignored. There is no human right to fame. Denying publicity to mass murderers would not be taking from them anything to which they are legitimately entitled.
I'm not saying that it needs to be paraded about, but treating the killer as a non-entity is just as bad. He or she at least needs to be acknowledged as well as why. Don't forget, in a lot of these cases, including this one, the perpetrator is also the victim. Additionally, media coverage can point those who listen to the warning signs of others who may be traveling down the same path.

So I agree that they don't need to be hyped up, but just totally ignoring them isn't the answer.

--------------------
Hz'ii'zt a'iiencf coxnen a'bn'z'p pahuen yzpa'zuhb be'tt'phukh'kn az'ii'ova mxn't bhcizvi'fl?

Nioca's Citadel - A resource for BoA graphics and scripts, as well as my scenarios.
In Last Hope's Light RP - The end is near...
Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #41
So, suicide doesn't get the media attention it merits?
Even a politician's rather famous suicide got rather short air time. The guy with the gun is only a victim through his own actions. That doesn't make him a victim. It makes him a ruiner.

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted"
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Canned
Member # 8014
Profile #42
He should have considered other peoples' feelings. Did he think that he could ruin lives? Maybe, though probably not. It was a selfish act that he did.

Oh, and the amendment against homos is, I think, unconstitutional.

--------------------
I can transform into almost anything, but not sanity -Iffy
Muffins n' Hell|Muffins n' Hell: The Muffins Are Back Again
I like this image
Not in your shed -We are sort of done. Helpful critizism is welcome.
Everyone, just call me Iffy. Please.

Be grateful you have your unsellabe trowels -Goldenking
Posts: 1799 | Registered: Sunday, February 4 2007 08:00
Agent
Member # 8030
Profile Homepage #43
quote:
Oh, and the amendment against homos is, I think, unconstitutional.

Um...There is no amendment against homosexuals. In the 1700's homosexuality was frowned upon, and the founding fathers made no statements concerning it.

I disagree with slapping laws against employers acting in discrimination. If they don't like a certain group of people, then they'll probably like them worse as an employee. The country was intended to have freedom, and when you have freedom you can choose who you hire.

If the government enacts laws against discrimination, does that mean that our local casinos will no longer be able to refuse service to anybody. As of right now, a casino does not have to furnish any reason what so ever as to why they ban or suspend a customer from their casino.

Spree killers should remain unnamed. Years after such incidents, the only individual remembered is the killer and not the victims.

--------------------
A Bile Crux
Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00
Shaper
Member # 73
Profile #44
quote:
Originally written by Excalibur:

IMAGE(http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/images/colored-only-sign.jpg)
FYT

--------------------
My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art
The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community
The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database
Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database
BoE Webring - Self explanatory
Polaris - Free porn here
Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too)
They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance
--------------------
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #45
quote:
Originally written by Excalibur:

If the government enacts laws against discrimination, does that mean that our local casinos will no longer be able to refuse service to anybody. As of right now, a casino does not have to furnish any reason what so ever as to why they ban or suspend a customer from their casino.
In a word, no. There are laws against discriminating on the basis of race, and the company policies of which you speak are still legal.

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

So you mean to tell me that if I tell a homosexual I won’t rent to them or they can’t come into my store because they’re gay in those 30 states it’s legal?
I think that's exactly what that means. We're only a few decades removed from a racial caste system; I don't see why this is at all hard to believe.

quote:
What does marriage have to do with equality? Inequality is when someone is treated differently. A homosexual man or woman has the same legal rights, restrictions, and protections that heterosexual ones do
Equal treatment is not always equitable treatment. Take nine high-schoolers who speak only English and one who speaks only Spanish, put them in a math class together (conducted in English), and give them a test in English to determine whether they pass the class. Fail anyone who fails the test. You're treating them all the same, but are you being fair?

In general: I spend a fair bit of my time studying the ancient Greeks and Romans, so the notion that sentiment against homosexuality is universal among human cultures would be hilarious to me if it weren't so offensive.

[ Friday, December 07, 2007 17:22: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Guardian
Member # 5360
Profile #46
quote:
I disagree with slapping laws against employers acting in discrimination. If they don't like a certain group of people, then they'll probably like them worse as an employee. The country was intended to have freedom, and when you have freedom you can choose who you hire.
Freedom should only go so far. Discrimination should not be a right. People should be entitled to their opinions, but it should not be legal to act on them past a certain point.

Also, speaking as a probable homosexual, you are offensive.

quote:
Spree killers should remain unnamed. Years after such incidents, the only individual remembered is the killer and not the victims.
You overstate their desire for publicity. "Now I'm going to be famous" is grim humor. Ha ha.

[ Friday, December 07, 2007 18:39: Message edited by: Thoughts in Chaos ]

--------------------
Fear us, mortals, but never envy, for though we burn with power, our fuel is our sorrows.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Wednesday, January 5 2005 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #47
quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

So, suicide doesn't get the media attention it merits?
Even a politician's rather famous suicide got rather short air time. The guy with the gun is only a victim through his own actions. That doesn't make him a victim. It makes him a ruiner.

Most responsible media organisations are reluctant to give broad news coverage to suicides for fairly good reasons: there's strong statistical evidence that every news article on a suicide causes a spike in the number of suicides. I don't think the evidence is as strong for news coverage of spree killings causing more spree killings, because there aren't enough data points to draw any firm conclusions, but they do seem to come in clusters.

I don't think a complete blackout on all information about spree killers is the answer, though: psychologists, at least, still need to study what predisposes people to commit such acts. The idea that there's no way to predict who might snap or when, and so we shouldn't even try to study spree killers to see what makes them tick, is both defeatist and factually incorrect: people have been caught while in the planning stages of committing mass murder, and even if not all of them were going to go through with it, you'd have to conclude that at least some lives have been saved. Does the general public have a legitimate interest in hearing all about the personal lives of spree killers? Probably not. But that doesn't mean information shouldn't be available to those who have good reason to seek it out.

[ Friday, December 07, 2007 19:38: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #48
The problem with freedom, Excalibur, is that one person's freedom is another person's infringement of freedom. If I am free to poke my neighbor with a stick, he can't be free to not be poked by sticks. Making laws is about balancing freedom and lack of freedom so that the most important freedoms are preserved.

In practice, employment discrimination laws have much less impact on positions where many applicants are considered for a single position, where personality, fit with the company and with co-workers, and so on are important considerations. Affirmative action can affect these positions but it is hard for discrimination laws too since reasons for hiring or not hiring can easily be fabricated. The laws mainly affect skilled and unskilled labor jobs with numerous identical positions, jobs where somebody could make blanket statements like "I only want to hire whites" or "I don't want any women in my plant."

Obviously, there are legitimate ways to sort people apart for job-worthiness; in fact most ways are legitimate. That's why there tend to be lists of "protected statuses" such as race and gender that are deemed to be irrelevant to most jobs.

Let me ask you: how would you feel if you were denied a job because you are a Christian?

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Agent
Member # 8030
Profile Homepage #49
quote:
Let me ask you: how would you feel if you were denied a job because you are a Christian?
That question required some thought. I'd be ticked at first, but after coming to, realize that it isn't surprising. However, I doubt such matters are a vexation in secondary education (What I want to major in).

The stick analogy depends on societal values. The jurisprudence I prefer is libertarian and based on the Social Contract Theory. Such governments would be largely influenced by society as it would dictate the definition of "natural rights." However, in this day and age, most industrialized countries are becoming socialist. So maybe I'll found a commune in the jungles of Papua New Guinea.

I must admit that my jurisprudence is either highly unlikely or highly impractical.

--------------------
A Bile Crux
Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00

Pages